AuthorTopic: Multiple Seat Deposits? (Read 10503 times)

Then the waitlist will be used only when people withdraw after having put down a deposit because they have been taken off the waitlist at another school. Instead of people putting down deposits on two or three schools they have already been admitted to and just taking a long time to decide, it will be only for people who have been taken off the waitlist at other schools. That will reduce the amount of people withdrawing after depositing and it will greatly reduce the size of the waitlist.

That's a win-win for everyone, except for the indecisive that can't make a choice.

My Current Front Runner requires the first seat deposit by April 15. What if I get accepted to the other two schools the first week in april? Am I supposed to travel to 3 schools and make a decision in a week without sending more than one seat deposit?

This normatively makes the process more efficient, but it has a bad effect if schools are not getting decisions to students with enough time. Underlying this new efficiency is a "we are all in this together" mentality which requires schools to get these decisions to applicants sooner.

I'm still waiting on two schools I would seriously consider attending. I want a clear picture of my options before I seriously think about my choices. This includes financial aid too. The whole process, in order for this new efficiency model to be good, needs to be bumped up a month. None of this bull waiting game (which I don't mind if I don't have to worry about this deposit policy).

That said, I don't think any school I would give a deposit to has this policy.

Each year, LSAC provides participating law schools with periodic reports detailing the number of applicants who have submitted seat deposits or commitments at other participating schools, along with identification of those other schools. Beginning June 15, 2008, those reports will also include the names and LSAC account numbers for all candidates who have deposits/commitments at multiple participating schools.

It seems the difference is that in prior years names weren't released. Instead the service gave numbers that might come in handy for a school to maintain a wait list. It will be interesting to see how schools act upon this information.

So this policy of name release will not affect those people who clear up their multiple deposits by June 15?

I can handle that. I think most of us are worried about getting through April. I plan to have withdrawn from all but one school--though I don't know which one yet-- by this date, barring waitlists.

Then the waitlist will be used only when people withdraw after having put down a deposit because they have been taken off the waitlist at another school. Instead of people putting down deposits on two or three schools they have already been admitted to and just taking a long time to decide, it will be only for people who have been taken off the waitlist at other schools. That will reduce the amount of people withdrawing after depositing and it will greatly reduce the size of the waitlist.

That's a win-win for everyone, except for the indecisive that can't make a choice.

And, as I said before, the people who have real-life circumstances that may dictate after deposit deadlines where they can move.

Besides this, the vast majority of school say nothing about cross-depositing in their acceptances and applicants, therefore, have no obligation to not do so.

You're missing the point about waitlists. Schools waitlist and defer people and then you act as though they can place some kind of moral imperative on us to make our final decision at a certain time, which can be before we've heard from other schools or their financial aid offers.

Then you have to decide where you want to go with the information you have available. If you choose to go elsewhere, you lose your couple hundred dollars, which shouldn't be much of a concern to an individual who is going to spend $50,000 to attend a more desirable school.